What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4704899?

The tribunal order states: Sarah Pou to pay The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent for Sally & Mark Kingsford

How much money was awarded in case 4704899?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,331.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $588.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4704899?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4704899?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9924132-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4704899?

The tribunal order states: Sarah Pou to pay The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent for Sally & Mark Kingsford

How much money was awarded in case 4704899?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,331.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $588.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4704899?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4704899?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9924132-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

70A Jolson Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4704899 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4704899 — net $1,940.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,331.43	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$588.65	Water rates
Net award	$1,940.52
Bond	$2,280.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,940.52

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4704899 — net $1,940.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,331.43	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$588.65	Water rates
Net award	$1,940.52
Bond	$2,280.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,940.52

Order

Sarah Pou to pay The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent for Sally & Mark Kingsford $1,940.52 from the bond for rent arrears, water bills and reimbursement of the filing fee, as calculated and shown in table below;
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 (5679954-005) immediately apportioned as follows: The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent for Sally & Mark Kingsford: $1,940.52 Sarah Pou: $339.48
The tenants’ claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, Mark, and Sally Kingsford (the owners) Nina Bhatia and Alex Watson (property managers), Sarah Pou (the tenant), and her support person Miriam Platt.
The tenant application is claiming that the landlord failed to maintain the property, breached Healthy Homes Standards under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), failed to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment. Furthermore, that the property was an unlawful premise as it did not have a code of compliance, that the water bills were excessive. The tenant sought exemplary damages for these breached of the RTA, rent reduction, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water bills, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background:
The tenancy commenced on 23 April 2021 and terminated on 14 September 2023. The property consisted of three separate units. The original residence was split into two separate units, prior to the landlord purchasing the property, and a new dwelling on the rear of the property.
All units had their own separate power and water supply and meters.
The original premise was built in the 1960’s and was compliant with the building codes and requirements at that time.
The landlord purchased the property in 2009.
In 2009 the landlord replaced the roof. In 2018, before the tenant took over her unit, there had been a major renovation of the unit. There was a new kitchen and new appliances installed, new bathroom, insulation was installed under floor, new carpets, repainting the interior, new curtains and extractor fans installed in the bathroom and kitchen. In 2021 a heat pump was installed. Landlord claims:

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 14 September 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The rent owing at the end of the tenancy was $1331.43 and water bills were $588.65.
The tenant accepts that she owes some rent arrears but claims it is only $1011.43. The landlord had increased the rent by $20 per week in January 2023. The tenant says she refused to pay the increased rent until the bathroom ceiling had been fixed, which represents the remaining sum of $320.00 owed in rent arrears. A tenant cannot stop paying the rent or refusing to pay an increase in rent, simply because they have a dispute with the landlord.
I find the landlord has proven their claim for rent arrears.
The tenant says she does not trust the water meter and the invoices that the property manager has given her. That she does not get regular bills, nor is she provided with an actual water care invoice, just an invoice for her portion of the total bill.
Part of the claims made during the hearing relate to excessive water bills, which will be addressed later in this order. However, I find that the landlord has proven their claim for the water bills.
I am satisfied that the landlord should be compensated for the outstanding rent arrears and water bills. Tenant claims:
Sarah Pou claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must - provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. -comply with all requirements in respect of insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 -comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety. Failure to maintain.
The tenant says that there was a failure to maintain the property and issues raised were not dealt with in a timely manner. Bathroom
The tenant claims that the was an ongoing problem with the ceiling in the bathroom. On one occasion early in the tenancy she had been cleaning mould off the ceiling and her hand went through the ceiling causing a hole to appear. The tenant says that the ceiling was wet where the hole was and that there was a leak.
The landlord provided evidence of the steps undertaken to assess whether there was a leak in the roof that would account for water seepage in the bathroom ceiling.
Specific steps taken by the landlord to address potential leaks in the ceiling were sending three different contractors to look at the bathroom ceiling. These contractors sealed and fixed a television aerial, removed part of the top off the chimney, cleaned the gutters and did a full roof assessment, replaced nails and sealant on the roof.
No evidence of leaks was found by the tradespeople.
The landlord claims that since the tenant’s departure there have been no further problems with mould in the bathroom and puts mould issues down to a lack of ventilation by the tenant.
The landlord stated that it did take a period of time to resolve issues with the bathroom ceiling due to investigations that were required.
I do not find that the landlord has failed to maintain the bathroom ceiling and has remedied within a timely fashion. Deck
The tenant initially claimed that the deck was rotting and unsafe and the landlord failed to maintain it.
The landlord provided invoices dated 13 December 2021, 13 February 2022 and 5 May 2023 where tradespeople had been employed to fix the decking. The documents show that a significant portion of the deck and steps were replaced as soon as the tenant had advised the landlord of issues.
After discussion of this claim in the hearing, the tenant accepted that the landlord did maintain the deck. Soffit and roof under eves
The tenant claims that there was a piece of soffit missing from the underside of the roof on the corner of the house and that it was a health and safety issue. The landlord sent a contractor out to the property to assess the problem.
The contractor advised that work was required but that there was no immediate risk.
This was a complex job requiring the repositioning of power lines to the other side of the house. This work required that the power would be off for a number of days to the whole property, not just the tenant’s unit.
The repair has now been completed and was complicated involving the coordination of a number of contractors, Vector, and the other tenants at the property.
The landlord maintained records and work orders for all the work carried out during this tenancy. The work order requests provided to the Tribunal show a list of complaints and work done on the property. The response to complaints appears to have been actioned as soon as they were received, and the work carried out as soon as practicable.
I do not find that the landlord failed to maintain the property in a timely fashion. Failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards Insulation
Sarah Pou claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The landlord provided confirmation that the insulation had been compliant with the RTA. Furthermore, that underfloor insulation had been installed but not in the ceiling due to the lack of space and that the property was exempt as a result.
During the hearing, the tenant advised the Tribunal that she knew that there were exemptions that applied to the property regarding the insulation.
I do not find that the landlord has breached the RTA relating to the insulation of the premises. Moisture Ingress and drainage standard
Sarah Pou claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Sarah Pou considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes, and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant raised this for the first time at the hearing. The tenant claimed that there were down pipes that drained under the house, leading to water pooling under the house. The water created dampness inside the house. The tenant provided several photos on her phone of the drains that do not appear to be connected to a drainage system.
I am not considering this claim as the landlord was completely unaware of this claim prior to the hearing and therefore unable to provide evidence to refute the claim.
The landlord has been disadvantaged by the lack of knowledge of this claim. If the tenant wishes to pursue this claim she can make a new application.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven her claim that the landlord breached Healthy Homes Standards. Unlawful residential premises as no Code of Compliance
The tenant claims that the property was unlawful as there was no firewall between the 2 adjourning units and no Code of Compliance (COC) had been issued by the Auckland City Council. Furthermore, that the landlord had not applied and obtained a Change of Use status for the property.
The tenant said that there were issues with letterboxes and power supplies and confusion as to the labelling of each unit.
The tenant said at the hearing that she obtained a copy of the property file and made enquires regarding the Code of Compliance with the Auckland City Council (ACC). In the property file she found a breach notice dated April 2004 advising the owner that the property needed to be returned to a single dwelling. In December 2005, a second breach notice was issued advising that the second dwelling was illegal, and the must be returned to a single dwelling.
The tenant says that in August 1996 there was an application for resource consent to carry out extensions on the existing house, but not to separate into two units.
The tenant says that the ACC records only have two consented dwellings on the property and not three, therefore making the unit unsafe, unconsented to and illegal. Also, that there was no firewall between the two units and the plumbing had not been separated properly. The tenant gave no evidence to support these claims other than concerns she had after reading the property file and that the water temperature fluctuated if being used simultaneously in both units.
The 2004 and 2005 Notices relate to the zoning restrictions at that time, that no longer apply.
The landlord said that the property currently consists of a principal dwelling separated into two self-contained flats and a secondary dwelling built by the landlord in 2019.
When the landlord purchased the property in 2009, they obtained a LIM report which listed multiple dwellings. The ACC rates invoice also identified the property as having two separate units.
The property had been marketed by the Real Estate Agency as being 2 flats and there were two existing tenancies at the property at the time of purchase.
Each of the three units have their own power and water meters and supply, own sets of rubbish bins, letterboxes, parking areas and defined outdoor spaces.
On 25 th September 2023, the ACC issued the landlord with a Notice to Fix. Further investigations by the ACC lead to the withdrawing of the Notice to Fix on 13 th October 2023.
The ACC confirmed that the original principal house had been consented as two flats and a change of use was established. The landlord provided the Tribunal with all the documentation confirming these facts from the ACC.
The landlord said that they had seen the fire-retardant boards between the units and that they had employed a fire engineer to report and assess whether they are compliant with current building standards.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven her claim relating to this being an unlawful property.
As the tenant has not been successful in her claims relating to breaches of the RTA, I cannot award exemplary damages. Excessive water bills.
The tenant claims that her water bills were excessive throughout her tenancy and that the amounts fluctuate.
The landlord explained that there had been a mistake with the water bills at the start of the tenancy. The tenant had been sent water bills for her unit and another unit on the property. This mistake was found, and the tenant was refunded $549.72 in December 2022 for the neighbour’s water bills that she had been paying.
The refunded money was determined by the property management company after reviewing all the water bills, and meters for the three units.
Each unit has its own meter. The landlord has sent a plumber to check the water meters to ensure there are no issues.
The landlord advised that at one time during the tenancy there had been a water leak. However, this leak was on the roadside and did not affect the tenants water usage.
The tenant has provided no evidence that there was a problem with the water meter and that her water bills were excessive.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven her claim that the water bills were excessive. Bond refund, filing fee and suppression.
The bond is to be refunded to the parties and apportioned as set out above.
The landlord is not seeking suppression of their details. As the tenant has not been successful in her claim, I cannot suppress her details.
Because The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent for Sally & Mark Kingsford has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. As the tenant has not been successful in her claims, I cannot reimburse her filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4704899 — Rent arrears at 70A Jolson Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4704899 — Rent arrears at 70A Jolson Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions